Gian Chand vs The State of Haryana and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Process for appointing Backward Class Lambardar of Village Uchani in District Karnal was initiated in the year 1994. On the basis of recommendations, Collector appointed respondent No. 4 on 18.3.1999. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, who, after considering the plea raised, set-aside the order passed by the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector to give a specific finding on the aspect of residence of respondent No. 4. Collector again appointed respondent No. 4 on 2.6.1999. The petitioner would term this order to be arbitrary and illegal. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 4 is not resident of Village Uchani and this can be seen from the backward Class certificate, the certificate of house tax, driving licence as well as voter card of respondent No. 4. The petitioner again challenged this order by filing appeal before the Commissioner. This time, Commissioner accepted the appeal and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. As per the finding of the Commissioner, respondent No. 4 belonged to Village Uchana and was also in unauthorised possession.

Respondent No. 4 filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed on 24.4.2003. Respondent No. 4 impugned the said order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3999 of 2004 before this Court. This Court set-aside the order dated 24.4.2003 passed by the Financial Commissioner and directed him to consider the case in the light of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Inderraj Vs. Financial Commissioner, 1994 PLJ 473. The judgment related to clearance of debt and as per this judgment relevant date of comparison is the date of appointment.

Grievance now is that respondent No. 1, without considering the judgments, has decided the case afresh and has accepted the revision filed by respondent No. 4 and has appointed him as Lambardar of Village Uchani, which is stated to be wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition on 9.8.2012.

The only submission made counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Village Uchani. He could not have been validly appointed as Lambardar of Village Uchana. This issue was considered by the Collector, who found that Villages Uchana and Uchani share their hadbast as per the revenue estate and, thus, both the candidates were found eligible for the post. So far as allegation of unauthorized occupation was concerned, it is observed that Khasra No. 61/26 is garmumkin Chah to Patti Ballu for irrigation purposes. The Panchayat has no right over this Khasra number, which is not gair jari (discontinued) Rafai-Aam, a word which is used to indicate common approach to well for co-sharers and probably allowed by all co-sharers to be used for getting drinking water. The Collector accordingly had considered both these issues in this manner and decided to appoint respondent No. 4 on 2.6.1999. The objections now raised, thus, were duly considered.

The Financial Commissioner passed the order on 18.12.2006, when the case was remanded to him, appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15799 of 2008, which, however, was dismissed as withdrawn on 9.8.2012. The petitioner had challenged two separate orders in Civil Writ Petition No. 15799 of 2008, which gave two separate causes of action to him. Accordingly, the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition to challenge the order, for which the cause for him finally survived. In this background, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby he has appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.

The Collector while appointing respondent No. 4, considered those very objections and gave good reasons to reject the same. No ground is noticed to find fault with the appointment of respondent No. 4. He (respondent No. 4) has been working as Lambardar since 1999 and still struggling to maintain his appointment. It is high time now that this case and contest must end. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being without any merit.